Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

aoav.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 242 posts

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#91

Post by specproc »

foldr wrote: post #64
specproc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One does not need to dictate every item of policy to control a country, one just needs to ensure that there's alignment on strategic issues. I think this was America's key point of learning when it took over the reins of the European empires after WW2. In Germany, historically the strategic issue was anti-communism, but now it serves as a military logistics hub; in Iraq, it's about trade in oil in dollars and access…

Or, to put it more succinctly, Iraq is occupied by the US in about the same sense that Germany is. And while the US no doubt exerts influence over Germany in part via its military power, I think the position that the US military presence in Germany is part of a “land grab” would be a rather fringe one.

It depends where you're sat and when. It's almost certainly a fringe perspective in the US, because I don't believe American's really think about it that much.

Whether troop presence is viewed as occupation or not in each of the >50 [1] countries currently "hosting" troops is very much a matter of personal perspective, the fringeness of which will vary from country to country.

I don't believe that it really changes the fact that yes, US troops occupy the UK, Germany and Iraq, and many more. The most substantial deployments, e.g., Germany, Japan, South Korea, and until recently Iraq and Afghanistan, were very much the product of invasions. At the time of those invasions, many of those on the receiving end would have very much felt on the receiving end of a land grab. It's just their grandchildren have been conditioned to view this state of affairs as natural.

The general pattern is "bomb the bejesus" [2] out of a country. Plant base. Install a friendly government and ensure a favourable operating environment for US interests. The UK is an exception in that it wasn't bombed by the US, but the upshot is the same. We're a wholely-owned subsidiary of corporate America, and a giant aircraft carrier on the other side of the Atlantic -- as the US's latest adventure in Iran has clearly demonstrated.

You may quibble over the "land" in land-grab, but the strategic bits (e.g., oil fields, bases) are very much owned, and the territory as a whole controlled by pliant governments.

[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...

[^2]: Kissenger, 1972

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#92

Post by dgroshev »

coldtea wrote: post #21
foldr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What land did Tony Blair grab? You can disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without making the exaggerated claim that this was part of some kind of long-term imperialist occupation. The UK currently has fewer military personnel in Iraq than it has in, say, Germany. And Britain doesn’t control the Iraqi government.

> What land did Tony Blair grab? You can disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without making the exaggerated claim that this was part of some kind of long-term imperialist occupation. Yeah, just a few decades years, to secure oil deals and/or keep control of the region. No biggie. That this can be said with a straight face about invasions to two countries that created civil war, suffering, hundreds of t…

Saying that it's the invasions that created civil wars and suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq is just exceptionally ignorant. Here's a taster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Ir...

For all their failures, the allies never bombed cities with nerve agents.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#93

Post by k1m »

JdeBP wrote: post #76

It is interesting to look at the details and see who the (news) 'media' are in this case. Going through the details, I find 1 instance (under Kemp) of the BBC, and everyone else is the 'usual suspects', the Telegraph , the Mail , GB News , the Sun , the Times , and so forth. The Guardian is only mentioned in context of exposing these conflicts of interests; and whilst I am surprised to find LBC and Nation Cymru as no…

The report doesn't say the media mentioned is an exhaustive list of the media that failed to disclose ties to the arms industry, which is what you're assuming.

You mention the Guardian. I took one of the names listed in the report, Richard Barrons, and quickly found an article in the Guardian where he's quoted but his ties to the arms industry are not disclosed: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/20/britain-def...

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#94

Post by dgroshev »

cryo32 wrote: post #53
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iraq and Afghanistan might disagree with your first point. Last time I looked Iran and the UK are quite some distance from each other, and Iran has inexplicably neither been launching missiles at the UK, nor threatening to, and is apparently not even capable of it. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crm120x4lzxo So the justification for these "defensive" bombing runs on Iranian mountain sites from Fairford remains mys…

Iran has been funding terrorist networks who are active in the UK and has taken direct action against UK citizens before on numerous occasions. They are also allied with Russia who are doing the same. They aren't some innocent party here. Geopolitics is complicated and not some black and white good guy bad guy mechanics.

To add some pretty hard data to this: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/fiona-and-irans-role-in-the-...

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#95

Post by vintermann »

matsemann wrote: post #35
defrost wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media in general is poor on declaring any and all bias of their various interviewed "experts". Quack doctors spruiking amazing new treatments (that they hold shares in). Automotive experts promoting car brands (that they receive advertising and influencer dollars for). etc.

One thing I've seen a bit in Norway, and which is relevant this month, is opinion pieces by "concerned parents" that get their writing into national news, but a quick search show that they're often head of some bigoted organization. Of course they should be entitled to their opinion and be able to express it as any other, but the news papers not disclosing this is unethical imo.

Well of course, if you're a concerned parent or concerned person of any kind in Norway, the first thing you do is start an organization. There are even some who start many, in the hope of cross-pollination.

What's more extreme to me is people like NRK's economy commentator Cecilie Langum Becker, who I read today went over to a lucrative job as communication chief in Aker. A corporate PR person by trade, for 8 years, she had front page space every day to push austeritarian, interest-scold propaganda that would make The Economist blush. So good of our public broadcaster to promote voices we rarely hear from in the media /s.

Actual grass roots organizations, even for unsympathetic causes like anti-pride, worry me less than the whole Orkla-Schibsted consensus.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#96

Post by jeltz »

matsemann wrote: post #35
defrost wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media in general is poor on declaring any and all bias of their various interviewed "experts". Quack doctors spruiking amazing new treatments (that they hold shares in). Automotive experts promoting car brands (that they receive advertising and influencer dollars for). etc.

One thing I've seen a bit in Norway, and which is relevant this month, is opinion pieces by "concerned parents" that get their writing into national news, but a quick search show that they're often head of some bigoted organization. Of course they should be entitled to their opinion and be able to express it as any other, but the news papers not disclosing this is unethical imo.

There was recently in Swedish media an article about harassment of Jews in Sweden and the guy they talked to was a member of a Zionist organisation who advocates for that Jews should move to Israel. It is fine to interview him, but such a clear conflict of interest should have been disclosed.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#97

Post by cryo32 »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #87
cryo32 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have been trying to kill people in the UK for years. And have been funding proxies everywhere, some of whom have attacked the UK. We're not really even involved and I find it hard to agree with this point. However it should have been dealt with earlier rather than latent bombing.

You could easily be describing the UK, Israel, and the USA, lol. Anyway, I live in the UK, and I don't swallow the same propaganda as you.

Which bit is the propaganda?

Do you know any actual Iranians? I do!

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#98

Post by enoint »

Npovview wrote: post #84
throawayonthe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

war is peace etc etc

"Department of War" was renamed as "Department of Defense" because Edward Bernays (the greatest propagandist who ever lived) said so.

Maybe not directly. In 1947, it became the Department of the Army, and in 1949 the Department of Defense. Bernays was working on Engineering of Consent at the time, and applied psychoanalysis was very subtle compared to simple Orwellian name changes. For example, Bernays wanted to get women to smoke cigarettes.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#99

Post by keybored »

flumpcakes wrote: post #9
einpoklum wrote: post #3

1. Calling it the "defense sector" is already quite biased. Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity. Or just call it the "arms industry" etc. If we were less charitable, we could well call it the "war industry". 2. Reading the article we note there's quite some overlap between arms industry links and links to Israel's fundraising and lobbying circles. I wonder whether UK media discloses those…

The UK doesn't have some imperialist policy of land grabs like Russia, or diplomacy through violence. In the current Iranian war the UK is only allowing it's bases to launch defensive missions, i.e. strike offensive capability or incoming missiles. So no, it is in fact the defense sector. What countries have a defense sector, if the UK doesn't?

They still own Falkland Islands.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#100

Post by defrost »

philipallstar wrote: post #90
defrost wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say that? Perhaps direct your Socratic Simplicio more accurately.

You were answering this: > > Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity. > What do you mean? As in invading other countries?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN